State v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n, 195 Wn. 2d 1

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that the Grocery Manufacturers Association was a political committee under the contribution prong of Washington’s Fair Campaign Practices Act and was required to register and disclose contributions and expenditures related to Initiative 522. The court rejected the Association’s as-applied First Amendment challenge and held that the trial court applied the proper standard in finding intentional violations warranting a trebled penalty. The court remanded for consideration of whether the penalty violated the federal or state excessive fines clauses.

Holdings

1. GMA was a political committee during the 2013 election cycle under the FCPA's contribution prong because it expected to receive contributions for electoral purposes through a segregated fund, and the contribution prong does not require proof that opposing a candidate or ballot proposition was the entity's primary purpose.
2. The FCPA's registration and disclosure requirements for political committees are constitutional as applied to GMA.
3. GMA violated RCW 42.17A.435 because it created and used the Defense of Brands account, solicited member contributions, transferred funds to No on 522, and advised members on diverting attention from the true funding sources for the purpose of concealment.
4. For purposes of FCPA violations, an intentional violation requires intent to accomplish an act prohibited by the FCPA, but does not require subjective knowledge that the conduct was illegal.
5. The Supreme Court did not decide whether GMA's base or trebled penalty was an unconstitutional excessive fine; it remanded the excessive-fines claim to the Court of Appeals for consideration.

Questions Presented

1. Whether GMA was a political committee under Washington's Fair Campaign Practices Act during the 2013 election cycle.
2. Whether the FCPA's registration and disclosure requirements were constitutional as applied to GMA under the First Amendment.
3. Whether GMA violated the FCPA's prohibition on concealing the sources of campaign contributions and expenditures.
4. Whether an intentional FCPA violation requires subjective knowledge that the conduct violated the law before a court may treble the judgment as punitive damages.
5. Whether the civil penalty imposed on GMA violated the excessive-fines clauses of the federal and state constitutions.
6. Whether either party was entitled to attorney fees on review.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded